Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC1245; [1963]Supp(1)SCR800
Shah, J.1. By order dated October 23, 1956, the Regional Transport Authority, Patiala, granted a permit to one Manohar Singh for plying a stage carriage on the Bhatinda Khera (Via Bajekhanna) - Jaitu-Kot-Kapura route which was about 55 miles long. This route covered 35 miles of the Bhatinda-Kot-Kapura-Faridkot route for which the appellants, M/s. Gandhara Transport Co. Ltd., held permits for plying their vehicles. In appeal against the order passed by the Regional Transport Authority, the appellate authority cancelled the permit in favour of Manohar Singh, but the order of the Appellate Authority was set aside by the Minister in-charge of the Transport Department, Punjab State, in revision, and it was directed that a fresh temporary permit be granted to Manohar Singh for plying vehicles on the route for which he had been given a permit. The appellants then preferred a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution before the High Court of Punjab, challenging the validity of the order pass...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1963SC812; (1964)66BOMLR93; [1962(5)FLR511]; (1962)IILLJ615SC; [1963]Supp(1)SCR789
Gajendragadkar, J.1. The respondent E. X. Joseph is in the service of the Government of India in the Audit and accounts Department at Bombay. He was she Secretary of the Civil Accounts Association which consists of non-gazetted staff of the Accountant-General's Office. The said Association was affiliated to the All India Non-Gazetted Audit and Accounts Association. The latter Association had been recognized by the Government of India in December, 1956. In May, 1959, the Government withdrew recognition of the said Association. In spite of the withdrawal of the recognition of the said Association, the respondent continued to be its Secretary General and refused to dissociate himself from the activities of the said Association, though called upon to do so. As a result of his activities, on or about June 3, 1960, he was served with a charge-sheet for having deliberately committed breach of Rule 4(b) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1955 (hereinafter called the Rules). Appella...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1963]Supp(1)SCR766
Shah J. 1. For the year of account ending March 31, 1955, Afco Private Ltd. - a private limited company - earned total income which was finally computed in assessment proceedings by order of the Income-tax Tribunal, at Rs. 49,843/-. The company declared a dividend of Rs. 11,712/- on July 13, 1955, and before the close of the year of assessment 1955-56 declared an additional dividend of Rs. 5,612/-, thereby distributing in the aggregate dividend which was not less than 60% of the total income, reduced by the income-tax and super-tax payable by it. The company then claimed rebate at the rate of one anna in the rupee on the amount computed according to Schedule I, Part I, Item B read with s. 2 of the Finance Act 15 of 1955. The Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner rejected the claim because in their view the claimant was a company to which the provisions of s. 23A of the Income-tax Act could not be made applicable. In appeal, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bomba...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1963]Supp(1)SCR776
Hidayatullah, J. 1. The assessee, A. V. Thomas and Co., Ltd., Alleppey, claimed a deduction of Rs. 4,05,072-8-6 in the assessment year 1952-53 as a bad debt which was written-off in its books of amount on December 31, 1951. This claim was disallowed. After sundry procedure, the following question was considered by the High Court of Kerala and answered against the assessee company :- 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the amount of Rs. 4,05,071-8-6 claimed by the assessee Co. as a deduction was not admissible either under section 10(2)(xi) or 10(2)(xv) ?' 2. The High Court certified the case as fit for appeal to this Court and this appeal has been filed by the assessee company. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Bangalore) Kerala, is the respondent. 3. The assessee company was incorporated in 1935 and, as is usual with companies, its Memorandum of Association authorised it to do multifarious business. According to clauses 1,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1963]48ITR76(SC)
SHAH J. - For the year of account ending March 31, 1955, Afco Private Ltd., a private limited company, earned a total income which was finally computed in assessment proceedings by order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, at Rs. 49,843. The company declared a dividend of Rs. 11,712 on July 13, 1955, and before the close of the year of assessment 1955-56 declared an additional dividend of Rs. 5,612, thereby distributing in the aggregate dividend which was not less than 60% of the total income, reduced by the income-tax and super-tax payable by it. The company then claimed rebate at the rate of one anna in the rupee on the amount computed according to Schedule I, Part I, item B, read with section 2 of the Finance Act (15 of 1955). The Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner rejected the claim because in their view the claimant was a company to which the provisions of section 23A of the Income-tax Act could not be made applicable. In appeal, the Income-tax Appellate...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1963]48ITR67(SC)
The judgment of the court was delivered by.HIDAYATULLAH J. - The assessee, A. V. Thomas and Co. Ltd., Alleppey, claimed a deduction of Rs. 4,05,072-8-6 in the assessment year 1952-53 as a bad debt which was written off in its books of amount on December 31, 1951. This claim was disallowed. After sundry procedure, the following question was considered by the High Court of Kerala and answered against the assessee company :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the amount of Rs. 4,05,071-8-6 claimed by the assessee company as a deduction was not admissible either under section 10(2)(xi) or 10(2)(xv) ?'The High Court certified the case as fit for appeal to this court and this appeal has filed by the assessee company. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Bangalore), Kerala, is the respondent.The assessee company was incorporated in 1935 and, as is usual with companies, its memorandum of association authorised it to do multifarious bu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1963SC1227; [1963]Supp(1)SCR750
Subba Rao, J.1. These appeals raise the same point, namely, the true interpretation of the expression 'recognised' in s. 3(2)(d) of the Madras Estates Land Act (1 of 1908), hereinafter called the Madras Act, and they can be disposed of together. 2. The facts giving rise to the said appeals may be briefly stated. The Government of Orissa treating the villages, which are the subject-matter of these appeals, as 'estates' issued notifications declaring that the said estates became vested in the State free from all encumbrances from the dates specified therein. The inamdars of the respective villages filed petitions in the High Court of Orissa under Art. 226 of the Constitution for the issue of an appropriate writ for cancelling the said notifications and for orders prohibiting the State from taking possession of the said villages. 3. The said villages can be placed in three groups, namely, (i) villages covered by Appeals Nos. 150, 151 and 155 which are admittedly within the geographical li...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1963SC1448; [1963]48ITR59(SC); [1963]Supp1SCR699
Kapur, J. 1. These appeals pursuant to a certificate of the High Court of Bombay raise the question of interpretation of s, 24B of the Income-tax Act in an Income-tax Reference. The question referred was answered in the negative and against the Commissioner of Income-tax who is the appellant in these appeals, the respondents being the heirs and legal representatives of one Amarchand N. Shroff, deceased. The appeals relate to the assessment years 1950-51, 1951-52, 1952-53, 1953-54 and 1954-55. 2. Shortly stated the facts of the case are these : Amarchand N. Shroff, Mangaldas and Hiralal were partners in a firm of solicitors. Amarchand died on July 7, 1949. Thereafter the partnership was carried on by Mangaldas and Hiralal up to November 30, 1949, and on December 1, 1949, Remesh son of Amarchand who had by then qualified as a solicitor joined the firm as the third partner. After the death of Amarchand the arrangement between the various partners in regard to the realisations of the old o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1963SC771; [1963]Supp1SCR710
Sarkar, J.1. This is an appeal against a judgment of the High Court of Mysore which held that the respondent was not liable to pay any octroi duty to the appellant municipality in respect of dutiable goods brought to its factory as on a proper interpretation of the appellant's by-law fixing the octroi limits, the respondent's factory was outside those limits. The question that arises in this appeal is one of the interpretation of that by-law. 2. The appellant municipality was constituted under the Bombay District Municipal Act, 1901. Section 4 of the Act gives power to the Government to declare any local area to be a municipal district and to extend, contract or otherwise alter the limits of any municipal district. Section 9 provides that there shall be a municipality for every municipal district. Section 59 of the Act inter alia provides that a municipality may subject to certain conditions impose 'an octroi on animals or goods, or both, brought within the octroi limits for consumptio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1963SC1489; [1963(6)FLR1]; (1962)IILLJ621SC; [1963]Supp1SCR730
Gajendragadkar, J. 1. The principal question which arises in this appeal has relation to the scope and effect of s. 25-FF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (hereinafter called the Act). An industrial dispute between the appellant, Anakapalla Co-operative Agricultural & Industrial Society, and the respondents, its workmen, was referred by the Governor of Andhra Pradesh for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad, under s. 10(1)(d) of the Act on December 7, 1960. The respondents who were in the employment of Vizagapatnam Sugar and Refinery Ltd. (hereinafter called the Company) claimed that they were entitled to re-employment in the said concern which had been purchased by the appellant, and since their demand for re-employment by the appellant was not accepted by it, they represented to the State Government that the said demand should be adjudicated upon by an Industrial Tribunal. That is how their demand for re-employment came to be referred under s. 10(1)(d)....
Tag this Judgment!